Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[anti-hero]

My 2 cents on the topic:

Yes,IVC is heritage of Pak.Its Indian heritage too.Lothal is in India.India never stole this heritage from Pak.I mean how can you steal someone's heritage ffs!!Pak voluntarily chose to forgo this heritage in 47.Now unsurprisingly, some people are blaming India for the same.Go celebrate IVC,have IVC festivals,whatever.Is India stopping you?

If westerners associate it with only India then is it India's fault?If we start calling India as Bharat will westerners suddenly think IVC only belongs to Pakistan?Laughable logic.Shows the identity crisis Pakistani people are facing.Also shows the flimsy grounds for partition(But I am happy that it happened,just look at our economy now.And Pak's)

Second point I would like to say is IVC culture is still alive in India.The Goddess IVC people worshiped got assimilated in Hinduism. On the other hand,modern state of Pakistan has'nt even got any vestigial remnant of Indus valley people's culture.Pak's only claim to IVC heritage is that it now controls the land where IVC once flourished.

 

[indushek]

You are double dealing on a very fine line.
There is no question of Heritage upon the creation of Pakistan.
Historical heritage of India is Hindu heritage, and India is most welcome to keep it.

Pakistan was created to promote Islamic way of life, not to be diluted or pressurized by pagan majority.

No double dealing, Joe says u can claim the Indian heritage i say u can't. I say this with no hate or pre judgement against you as a Pakistani, based on the reasoning i presented and would like to know of logic which could point otherwise.

You have supported my argument and so let us wait for some one who doesn't.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is no need of support for my statement from Pakistanis Joe, you have provided the requisite support with yours. You say that Pakistan was created for protecting Muslim Heritage, from what did the Muslim heritage need protection from? from the Hinduor the ancient 'Indian' heritage isn't it?? when u say it (Muslim Heritage) needs protection doesn't it mean naturally that it (Hindu heritage) is deemed alien and is shunned??

Your first sentence seems to indicate that you are drawing the wrong inferences from what I said. But we will come to that later.

Yes, the Muslims felt that their way of life need protection from the ill effects of living with an overwhelming majority of others. I fail to see the logic which therefore makes the way of the majority alien and to be shunned. A desire to keep your own way of life as it is need not automatically mean despising all alternatives. It does mean rejecting any kind of involuntary long-term blurring of the essential differences.

I never said they wanted to destroy that heritage, just as Muslims live and prosper here there are Hindus in Pakistan too.

What is the point here? Nobody accused you of anything. It isn't about you.

However while the constitutional nature of our country makes us Secular theirs makes it Islamic.

This is the kind of imprecision which can lead to most misleading consequences. The Indian constitution was NOT called secular until Indira Gandhi brought in an amendment, years after independence. The Pakistani constitution of 1956 was NOT Islamic. It was Bhutto's constitution that brought in the idea of an Islamic Republic, if I remember correctly.

Your contention is wrong at the root. This kind of wishful distortion of reality can lead us seriously into error. Please be careful.

Without popular support u cannot make it work can you?? So when Pakistan is a Islamic republic and has been created to 'preserve' Islamic heritage and is majority Muslim where they revel in heros of Arabia who plundered the subcontinent, u still say that they are entitled to the Hindu heritage??On basis of what i would really like to know.

Read VSDOC on the subject. He has explained it clearly.

This is a real doubt on my part, there has always been debates on this and never a middle ground is achieved.

We each of us have the option of joining the intransigents. Life becomes easy, decision making becomes easy. No to the Muslims and Arab lovers. They are not to claim the IVC as their own. Back to Arabia with the whole pack.

If that is what makes you comfortable, why bother with a discussion?

 

[indushek]

Your first sentence seems to indicate that you are drawing the wrong inferences from what I said. But we will come to that later.

Yes, the Muslims felt that their way of life need protection from the ill effects of living with an overwhelming majority of others. I fail to see the logic which therefore makes the way of the majority alien and to be shunned. A desire to keep your own way of life as it is need not automatically mean despising all alternatives. It does mean rejecting any kind of involuntary long-term blurring of the essential differences.



What is the point here? Nobody accused you of anything. It isn't about you.



This is the kind of imprecision which can lead to most misleading consequences. The Indian constitution was NOT called secular until Indira Gandhi brought in an amendment, years after independence. The Pakistani constitution of 1956 was NOT Islamic. It was Bhutto's constitution that brought in the idea of an Islamic Republic, if I remember correctly.

Your contention is wrong at the root. This kind of wishful distortion of reality can lead us seriously into error. Please be careful.




Read VSDOC on the subject. He has explained it clearly.



We each of us have the option of joining the intransigents. Life becomes easy, decision making becomes easy. No to the Muslims and Arab lovers. They are not to claim the IVC as their own. Back to Arabia with the whole pack.

If that is what makes you comfortable, why bother with a discussion?

I will first answer your contention that the feeling of throwing out the Muslims from claiming IVC makes me comfortable, no it doesn't if they want they can, there is something called freedom of speech. However it is laughable given the circumstances of Pakistan.

Thanks for the information on the secular addition to our constitution, i wasn't aware of it. However Pakistan was made an Islamic Republic right in 1956 itself according to wiki info. This is what Mr. Liakat Ali Khan said before debate on the constitution:

Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today.[3]

Hindu members of the Constitutional Assembly argued that the Objectives Resolution differed with Muhammad Ali Jinnah's (Quaid-e-Azam) view in all the basic points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said:

What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.

After nine years of efforts, Pakistan was successful in framing a constitution. The Constituent Assembly adopted it on 29 February 1956, and it was enforced on 23 March 1956, proclaiming Pakistan to be an Islamic republic.

Where is the distortion? What i see is irony in above situation while the Quaid e Azam wanted a secular Pakistan what came out was an Islamic Republic and irrespective of Indian National Congress's views on the future of India we became a Secular republic.
It is this irony which brings out the question when the Islamic Republic created to build the lives on "Islamic teachings and traditions of Islam" the dharmic tradition though existent can never be counted up on can it.

I read what Vsdoc wrote, true it is their problem how they incorporate both but the problem is 'Arab lovers' are more in number and the level headed in less numbers. This is what led to the Islamic Republic 60 years back.

I am not an intransigentist , i am trying to understand your point of their claim to this culture.

After reading on wiki about this Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya i was interested and searched for him, the below is a link to his speech in the assembly in 1949. If there are any doubts about the tradition that Pakistan wanted to follow are cleared to a great level in his own words. May be u have read it already but if not give it a try

The Speech of Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya (Opposition to Objectives Resolution, Constitutent Assembly of Pak, 12 March 1949) - All My Posts governance History India-Pakistan History Islam On Pakistan Pakistan - 'Objectives Resolution' Bengal Bhupen

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Whilst cat was away I can see the children have been playing!

There two type of fanatics here:-

The Pakistani fanatics.

They have had 65 years of being stuffed with this arty farty fairtale which runs something like this. Your Muslim, you dropped from the heavens in 1947 ( bit like the Jews from Europe settled in Isreal in 1947 ) and since then they established Pakistan, fort of Islam. Or alternatively they all were Arabs and landed with Bin Qasim in 9th century.

This is load of bollocks. With the exception of the migrants who moved from India to Pakistan in 1947 the rest of the people ( 95% ) are native to the land. No doubt over the millenia as happens with all populations invaders came and in time they melted into the general population. The Indus valley has been a mixing pot. This happens everywhere. The British people carry the blood of Celts who were the original inhabitants as well as the waves who came over time. The Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans. Today the British are a mix of all strains. Of course they had to wait last for the best wave, which was me !!! You can't unravel their mixed up ancestry.

The exact same process has been happening in the Indus Valley ( todays Pakistan occupies the majority of this valley ) ever since the time of Mohenjo Daro. Now this is a very simple and plausible suggestion I am making. I realise the fanatics in Pakistan are going to oppose this view because it conflicts with their worldview which has been informed by 63 years of Pakistan government sponsored propaganda because 'hey we are all Arabs'.

But I got news for these people. There is a natural law that if something does not fit with reality eventually the bubble will burst. It is going to take time but rest assured I say to these fanatics the people of Pakistan, one by one will eventually reconnect with their land and their forefathers - And before you Indian's pull your pants down and start masturbating ' Yeh but you guys will be just another India' if that happens I say 'Piss off'.

The Bengalis managed to get out of this bubble and I ask the Indian's go along and check the map and you will see a small blob fast sinking in the Bay of Bengal - What do you call that ........... Yes Bangladesh. So no they have not become another India. They have become very nationalist and gone to their roots as Bangali. Bravo to them. Of course they are still Muslims but they do not live in denial of their roots, that is Bengali.

But of course this process is going to take time for this tide unleashed since at least 1949 to recede. Of course being fanatics they are not open to reason or facts. If they had it their way some of the fringe would blow up all ancient ruins or history similar to the Taliban.

INDIAN FANATICS.

The Indian fanatics are no differant from the Pakistani and this thread has attracted them like flies to honey. They have been pressure pumped with all sort of garbage. Because the Mullah is missing on the Indian side they come across more progressive, modern but underneath the gloss they are same. They rewrite history and at times even geography, where rivers bursts out from the ground where there was desert before and mountains split apart. Then ample use of scripture ( just as on our side scripture is used ) as referance. It would appear Rig Vedic frequently smokes that pipe.

Everything suddenly becomes 'Hindu'. Of course the unity in diversity argument is propunded, if you have a square that does not fit into the circle. I mean the the Pygmy people of Africa must also be Hindu. Well they do have two legs, they do use their mouths to talk and would you believe it they even use their hands to eat. All attributes in common with Hindu of India. Ping!!!

I suppose that is the Muslim equivalent of the common held view that everybody is born a Muslim. That is why the term 'revert' is used for those who convert. So wild claims bordering fantasy where Harapans become Hindus. Or Proto-Hindus. I suppose you could argue that primitive man was also Proto-Hindu because some of them evolved into modern Hindus. I can see a Mullah screaming 'No he was born a Muslim.' The Indian fanatic saying no he was Proto-Hindu. Crazy!!!

I came across a article which claims that ( might be mistaken here ) that Lothal is part of IVC. Because they used the same measures. So desperate are the Indian fanatics that they will find the most pathetic reason as proof. Besides anything else the Lothal site is no where near the Indus Valley. Does anybody know what a valley is? Lothal falls well outside the Indus River catcment area thus it is not erven within the Indus Valley.

Of course you can claim that plate tectonic activity shifted the entire mantlepiece causing the gradient differantials. I used Google Earth as a rough guide. There is at least 300 feet plus elevation between Lothal site and the nearest riverine zone of the Indus in Sindh, Pakistan. Of course maybe the the gravity was pulling in reverse and the water gushed uphill is a possiblity.

And I checked Lothal site, all it is is a tiny site. The actual ruins are possibly hundred feet plus. Is that a joke? Is that what all the drama is about. If that is your golden site I wonder what rest are, just a footprint? You guys have made a mountain out of molehill. For comparison I checked Mohenjo Daro which is at least 15 times more extent. I will back to have more fun later.

I just like to ask the Indian's you crow on about secularism then you start peddling the same concept as the Mullahs. Hinduism creeps in. Yes, I am well aware of culture, civilization realm etc. Europe is an example of that in fact you could add modern day US, Canada as well.

Ciao.

Joe-S. I will get to your post after I have done some research. I think your post deserves some thinking. What you see here is just pulp for the masses.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will first answer your contention that the feeling of throwing out the Muslims from claiming IVC makes me comfortable, no it doesn't if they want they can, there is something called freedom of speech. However it is laughable given the circumstances of Pakistan.

Thanks for the information on the secular addition to our constitution, i wasn't aware of it. However Pakistan was made an Islamic Republic right in 1956 itself according to wiki info. This is what Mr. Liakat Ali Khan said before debate on the constitution:

Sir, I consider this to be a most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence, because by achieving independence we only won an opportunity of building up a country and its polity in accordance with our ideals. I would like to remind the house that the Father of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, gave expression of his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms, Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam, because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that Islam provides a panacea to the many diseases which have crept into the life of humanity today.[3]

Hindu members of the Constitutional Assembly argued that the Objectives Resolution differed with Muhammad Ali Jinnah's (Quaid-e-Azam) view in all the basic points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya said:

What I hear in this (Objectives) Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan - the Quaid-i-Azam, nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulema of the land.

After nine years of efforts, Pakistan was successful in framing a constitution. The Constituent Assembly adopted it on 29 February 1956, and it was enforced on 23 March 1956, proclaiming Pakistan to be an Islamic republic.

Where is the distortion? What i see is irony in above situation while the Quaid e Azam wanted a secular Pakistan what came out was an Islamic Republic and irrespective of Indian National Congress's views on the future of India we became a Secular republic.
It is this irony which brings out the question when the Islamic Republic created to build the lives on "Islamic teachings and traditions of Islam" the dharmic tradition though existent can never be counted up on can it.

I read what Vsdoc wrote, true it is their problem how they incorporate both but the problem is 'Arab lovers' are more in number and the level headed in less numbers. This is what led to the Islamic Republic 60 years back.

I am not an intransigentist , i am trying to understand your point of their claim to this culture.

After reading on wiki about this Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya i was interested and searched for him, the below is a link to his speech in the assembly in 1949. If there are any doubts about the tradition that Pakistan wanted to follow are cleared to a great level in his own words. May be u have read it already but if not give it a try

The Speech of Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya (Opposition to Objectives Resolution, Constitutent Assembly of Pak, 12 March 1949) - All My Posts governance History India-Pakistan History Islam On Pakistan Pakistan - 'Objectives Resolution' Bengal Bhupen

You are right and I was wrong, Pakistan was proclaimed an Islamic Republic right from the first, the 1956 Constitution. However, this step of the debacle was not embodied in that phrase, but in the Objectives Resolution, which gave an Islamic direction to all future proceedings. It is quite certain that this was not what Jinnah would have encouraged or supported, going by the body of his work and his published speeches and whatever we know.

In Islamic terms, except for that fateful Resolution, which was adopted in a parallel to the Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution, the 1956 Constitution was relatively mild. No law contrary to the teachings of Islam could be passed, a not unnatural step for a Muslim majority state, set up to protect the Muslim way of life. There was no attempt to go further; at this time, it was still open to a person not a Muslim to become President or Prime Minister. The 1956 Constitution was as Islamic as our Constitution was Hndu specific. Only the term Islamic Republic was used, contrary to my defective memory.

The second regressive step was the 1973 Constitution, Bhutto's Constitution, which still prevails. This was a serious step towards further Islamicisation.

Zia ul Haq brought in the third set of measures, introducing the Federal Shariat Court. The thread is not about Islamicisation in Pakistan, so there is no point in dwelling further on this.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Lothal is considered part of IVC whether u like it or not,start any research paper the map of extent of IVC shows 3 major centres harappa ,mahenjo daro and lothal.U accuse others of fanaticism then live in denial,first u rubbished the dravidian claim of ivc and when faced with neutral sources tried a moderate tone.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Whilst cat was away I can see the children have been playing!

There two type of fanatics here:-

The Pakistani fanatics.

They have had 65 years of being stuffed with this arty farty fairtale which runs something like this. Your Muslim, you dropped from the heavens in 1947 ( bit like the Jews from Europe settled in Isreal in 1947 ) and since then they established Pakistan, fort of Islam. Or alternatively they all were Arabs and landed with Bin Qasim in 9th century.

This is load of bollocks. With the exception of the migrants who moved from India to Pakistan in 1947 the rest of the people ( 95% ) are native to the land. No doubt over the millenia as happens with all populations invaders came and in time they melted into the general population. The Indus valley has been a mixing pot. This happens everywhere. The British people carry the blood of Celts who were the original inhabitants as well as the waves who came over time. The Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans. Today the British are a mix of all strains. Of course they had to wait last for the best wave, which was me !!! You can't unravel their mixed up ancestry.

The exact same process has been happening in the Indus Valley ( todays Pakistan occupies the majority of this valley ) ever since the time of Mohenjo Daro. Now this is a very simple and plausible suggestion I am making. I realise the fanatics in Pakistan are going to oppose this view because it conflicts with their worldview which has been informed by 63 years of Pakistan government sponsored propaganda because 'hey we are all Arabs'.

But I got news for these people. There is a natural law that if something does not fit with reality eventually the bubble will burst. It is going to take time but rest assured I say to these fanatics the people of Pakistan, one by one will eventually reconnect with their land and their forefathers - And before you Indian's pull your pants down and start masturbating ' Yeh but you guys will be just another India' if that happens I say 'Piss off'.

The Bengalis managed to get out of this bubble and I ask the Indian's go along and check the map and you will see a small blob fast sinking in the Bay of Bengal - What do you call that ........... Yes Bangladesh. So no they have not become another India. They have become very nationalist and gone to their roots as Bangali. Bravo to them. Of course they are still Muslims but they do not live in denial of their roots, that is Bengali.

But of course this process is going to take time for this tide unleashed since at least 1949 to recede. Of course being fanatics they are not open to reason or facts. If they had it their way some of the fringe would blow up all ancient ruins or history similar to the Taliban.

INDIAN FANATICS.

The Indian fanatics are no differant from the Pakistani and this thread has attracted them like flies to honey. They have been pressure pumped with all sort of garbage. Because the Mullah is missing on the Indian side they come across more progressive, modern but underneath the gloss they are same. They rewrite history and at times even geography, where rivers bursts out from the ground where there was desert before and mountains split apart. Then ample use of scripture ( just as on our side scripture is used ) as referance. It would appear Rig Vedic frequently smokes that pipe.

Everything suddenly becomes 'Hindu'. Of course the unity in diversity argument is propunded, if you have a square that does not fit into the circle. I mean the the Pygmy people of Africa must also be Hindu. Well they do have two legs, they do use their mouths to talk and would you believe it they even use their hands to eat. All attributes in common with Hindu of India. Ping!!!

I suppose that is the Muslim equivalent of the common held view that everybody is born a Muslim. That is why the term 'revert' is used for those who convert. So wild claims bordering fantasy where Harapans become Hindus. Or Proto-Hindus. I suppose you could argue that primitive man was also Proto-Hindu because some of them evolved into modern Hindus. I can see a Mullah screaming 'No he was born a Muslim.' The Indian fanatic saying no he was Proto-Hindu. Crazy!!!

I came across a article which claims that ( might be mistaken here ) that Lothal is part of IVC. Because they used the same measures. So desperate are the Indian fanatics that they will find the most pathetic reason as proof. Besides anything else the Lothal site is no where near the Indus Valley. Does anybody know what a valley is? Lothal falls well outside the Indus River catcment area thus it is not erven within the Indus Valley.

Of course you can claim that plate tectonic activity shifted the entire mantlepiece causing the gradient differantials. I used Google Earth as a rough guide. There is at least 300 feet plus elevation between Lothal site and the nearest riverine zone of the Indus in Sindh, Pakistan. Of course maybe the the gravity was pulling in reverse and the water gushed uphill is a possiblity.

And I checked Lothal site, all it is is a tiny site. The actual ruins are possibly hundred feet plus. Is that a joke? Is that what all the drama is about. If that is your golden site I wonder what rest are, just a footprint? You guys have made a mountain out of molehill. For comparison I checked Mohenjo Daro which is at least 15 times more extent. I will back to have more fun later.

I just like to ask the Indian's you crow on about secularism then you start peddling the same concept as the Mullahs. Hinduism creeps in. Yes, I am well aware of culture, civilization realm etc. Europe is an example of that in fact you could add modern day US, Canada as well.

Ciao.

Joe-S. I will get to your post after I have done some research. I think your post deserves some thinking. What you see here is just pulp for the masses.

Do not fail to look through RoadRunner's arguments. Before you happened along, he was the most robust, most convincing advocate of the Indus Man point of view.

Although I disagree with it, you might find Aitzaz Ahsan on the subject quite interesting. He is a formidable scholar and his book reflects considerable thought about the nature of civilization and culture.

Be nice to Austerlitz. He is not connected to me, and it is not nice to be disdainful about his role.

I can only respond tomorrow afternoon, since it is past midnight now, and I have work tomorrow morning.

Cheers.

 

[Rafi]

Pakistanis and indians will have to agree to disagree, one undeniable fact, Harrapa and Mohenjadoro are in Pakistan, and anyone wanting to study the sights will have to come to PAKISTAN to study them.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistanis and indians will have to agree to disagree, one undeniable fact, Harrapa and Mohenjadoro are in Pakistan, and anyone wanting to study the sights will have to come to PAKISTAN to study them.

That is not the issue. The issue is that people think they have to come to India to study them. That is what set Atanz to start this thread

What you say is quite correct in itself. It is just as correct as for our Indonesian friend to point out that we have to go to Java to study Borobodur. Or to remember that we need to go to Kampuchea to see Angkor Wat. What you are saying is that a piece of cultural India is located in that part of geographical India that is now politically Pakistan. Why would I, or anybody else, have problems with that?

We would also not have problems if you say that you and your ancestors share that legacy with all others who are in cultural India.

The only problems that arise are when you say that your heroes are Arabic, or Afghan, or Turkish, or Iranian, and your cultural legacy includes these aspects of cultural India. The problem arises because people will question you on what they see as irreconcilable differences; how can you simultaneously admire the conqueror and the destroyer, and claim what he set out to destroy? Developereo has answered that, but people are not willing to listen.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Whilst cat was away I can see the children have been playing!

There two type of fanatics here:-

The Pakistani fanatics.

They have had 65 years of being stuffed with this arty farty fairtale which runs something like this. Your Muslim, you dropped from the heavens in 1947 ( bit like the Jews from Europe settled in Isreal in 1947 ) and since then they established Pakistan, fort of Islam. Or alternatively they all were Arabs and landed with Bin Qasim in 9th century.

This is load of bollocks. With the exception of the migrants who moved from India to Pakistan in 1947 the rest of the people ( 95% ) are native to the land. No doubt over the millenia as happens with all populations invaders came and in time they melted into the general population. The Indus valley has been a mixing pot. This happens everywhere. The British people carry the blood of Celts who were the original inhabitants as well as the waves who came over time. The Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans. Today the British are a mix of all strains. Of course they had to wait last for the best wave, which was me !!! You can't unravel their mixed up ancestry.

The exact same process has been happening in the Indus Valley ( todays Pakistan occupies the majority of this valley ) ever since the time of Mohenjo Daro. Now this is a very simple and plausible suggestion I am making. I realise the fanatics in Pakistan are going to oppose this view because it conflicts with their worldview which has been informed by 63 years of Pakistan government sponsored propaganda because 'hey we are all Arabs'.

But I got news for these people. There is a natural law that if something does not fit with reality eventually the bubble will burst. It is going to take time but rest assured I say to these fanatics the people of Pakistan, one by one will eventually reconnect with their land and their forefathers - And before you Indian's pull your pants down and start masturbating ' Yeh but you guys will be just another India' if that happens I say 'Piss off'.

The Bengalis managed to get out of this bubble and I ask the Indian's go along and check the map and you will see a small blob fast sinking in the Bay of Bengal - What do you call that ........... Yes Bangladesh. So no they have not become another India. They have become very nationalist and gone to their roots as Bangali. Bravo to them. Of course they are still Muslims but they do not live in denial of their roots, that is Bengali.

But of course this process is going to take time for this tide unleashed since at least 1949 to recede. Of course being fanatics they are not open to reason or facts. If they had it their way some of the fringe would blow up all ancient ruins or history similar to the Taliban.

INDIAN FANATICS.

The Indian fanatics are no differant from the Pakistani and this thread has attracted them like flies to honey. They have been pressure pumped with all sort of garbage. Because the Mullah is missing on the Indian side they come across more progressive, modern but underneath the gloss they are same. They rewrite history and at times even geography, where rivers bursts out from the ground where there was desert before and mountains split apart. Then ample use of scripture ( just as on our side scripture is used ) as referance. It would appear Rig Vedic frequently smokes that pipe.

Everything suddenly becomes 'Hindu'. Of course the unity in diversity argument is propunded, if you have a square that does not fit into the circle. I mean the the Pygmy people of Africa must also be Hindu. Well they do have two legs, they do use their mouths to talk and would you believe it they even use their hands to eat. All attributes in common with Hindu of India. Ping!!!

I suppose that is the Muslim equivalent of the common held view that everybody is born a Muslim. That is why the term 'revert' is used for those who convert. So wild claims bordering fantasy where Harapans become Hindus. Or Proto-Hindus. I suppose you could argue that primitive man was also Proto-Hindu because some of them evolved into modern Hindus. I can see a Mullah screaming 'No he was born a Muslim.' The Indian fanatic saying no he was Proto-Hindu. Crazy!!!

I came across a article which claims that ( might be mistaken here ) that Lothal is part of IVC. Because they used the same measures. So desperate are the Indian fanatics that they will find the most pathetic reason as proof. Besides anything else the Lothal site is no where near the Indus Valley. Does anybody know what a valley is? Lothal falls well outside the Indus River catcment area thus it is not erven within the Indus Valley.

Of course you can claim that plate tectonic activity shifted the entire mantlepiece causing the gradient differantials. I used Google Earth as a rough guide. There is at least 300 feet plus elevation between Lothal site and the nearest riverine zone of the Indus in Sindh, Pakistan. Of course maybe the the gravity was pulling in reverse and the water gushed uphill is a possiblity.

And I checked Lothal site, all it is is a tiny site. The actual ruins are possibly hundred feet plus. Is that a joke? Is that what all the drama is about. If that is your golden site I wonder what rest are, just a footprint? You guys have made a mountain out of molehill. For comparison I checked Mohenjo Daro which is at least 15 times more extent. I will back to have more fun later.

I just like to ask the Indian's you crow on about secularism then you start peddling the same concept as the Mullahs. Hinduism creeps in. Yes, I am well aware of culture, civilization realm etc. Europe is an example of that in fact you could add modern day US, Canada as well.

Ciao.

Joe-S. I will get to your post after I have done some research. I think your post deserves some thinking. What you see here is just pulp for the masses.

Mu guess is u know little about subcontinent history and nothing about IVC history...
Ther are many debates raging on, that the IVC is dravidian .. As regards on ur comments on hinduism in IVC, have u checked out the coins and symbols collected in IVC?
Shiva symbols and man atop a bull engraved seal are more common...
So where do u find those now? In Europe?
In tamil nadu, many are saivite and more what, the bull fight still takes place only in tamil nadu in all of india... It is pretty much possible dravidians were fully on the subcontinent, before aryans came...
So dont think u alone are smart...

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Mate i was supporting ur point to the IVC being a dravidian civ.All neutral sources mostly agree on this.I think u misread my post.

Well ya i got u wrong

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Austerlitz: The senior man around here, Joe-S has advised that I was tad harsh on you. So in respect of his wishes I take back that comment I made about you.

And why are you guy's still flogging the Dravidian thing? Now this is getting tedious, so hear loud and clear. It is possible that the original ethnic group in the Indus Valley was Dravidian. I can't discount that possibility and neither can you prove that. You can read views of the late Prof. Ahmad Hassan Dhani. So there are two views on this and I do not think both can be reconciled until either they find DNA sample or they manage to read the tablets found at the ruins.

But I think at end of the day it is irrelevant because if indeed the Dravidians were there than it would mean the present people in Sindh - Punjab, Pakistan had forefathers who were Dravidian's. What is so profound about that, if indeed that is the case?

And yes, I am aware about the Brahui of Balochistan, a people linked to Dravidians.

Raja Chola: So you would rather have me think I am stupid? Great.
What am supposed to look out for on the coins? A stamp at the back which says ' Made by a Hindu'?
Correct me but the bull is found all over South Asia so what would be so shocking about it's use in symbols?. As a example the eagle is found all over the world. It is a symbol in use by US, by the German's, some Arab countries. Point taken? Many cultures can use the same symbol.

And can youplease find out what a valley is? Then can you also find out what a catchment area is. Could you possibly then explain how is Lothal in the Indus Valley?

 

[Joe Shearer]

.......And why are you guy's still flogging the Dravidian thing? Now this is getting tedious, so hear loud and clear. It is possible that the original ethnic group in the Indus Valley was Dravidian. I can't discount that possibility and neither can you prove that. You can read views of the late Prof. Ahmad Hassan Dhani. So there are two views on this and I do not think both can be reconciled until either they find DNA sample or they manage to read the tablets found at the ruins.,

Perfectly correct. If I might lean over and offer a few thoughts, entirely uninvited:

That the IVC people spoke a Dravidian language is an interesting speculation, but a speculation entirely on par with all other speculations regarding the language spoken there. One experimental result that is very intriguing is the result of a group of researchers in a mathematical research institute in Madras, who compared the symbols on the IVC seals with the patterns of words in various Indian languages. They found that the language whose arrangements matched the arrangements of the seals most closely was Tamil. By the way, this result still does not help to read the seals, if they can at all be read.

In any case, it is not ethnicity, but language group that is involved. The ethnicity question requires separate consideration. In my opinion, neither issue has a compelling impact on the present discussion, so this too is best left for another time. This is not intended to disappoint Dravidian-speech supporters. The case is as strong as any other. This is just not the best time and place for it.

But I think at end of the day it is irrelevant because if indeed the Dravidians were there than it would mean the present people in Sindh - Punjab, Pakistan had forefathers who were Dravidian's. What is so profound about that, if indeed that is the case?

And yes, I am aware about the Brahui of Balochistan, a people linked to Dravidians.

Quite so, without offence.

Raja Chola: So you would rather have me think I am stupid? Great.
What am supposed to look ounjt for on the coins? A stamp at the back which says ' Made by a Hindu'?
Correct me but the bull is found all over South Asia so what would be so shocking about it's use in symbols?. Ams a example the eagle is found all over the world. It is a symbol in use by US, by the German's, some Arab countries. Point taken? Many cultures can use the same symbol.

The thought that some of the symbols or the pictures on the seals are strongly reminiscent of Hindu concepts and thoughts on divinity is a persistent one. Let us be quite clear about what it is that we are discussing.

In current Hindu theogony, dating back at least to Puranic theogony, Siva has been prominent. He was nowhere so prominent in Vedic theogony, and the closest representation of him is Rudra. It appears then that between the time of the Vedas and the time of the Puranas, an ascetic god of transcendental power, associated with a bull, entered Hindu theogony.

This must have been the influence of local worshippers and the deities they worshipped. There is no other logical point of entry. And that, in turn, gives us an interesting triangle. Was the Hindu Siva drawn from an autochthonous God? Was this autochthonous God the same figure with coiled hair on his head (as it appears to some) and in yogic pose found on the seals? Did Hindu priests take the idea of Siva from the dwellers of the IVC or from other existing inhabitants of India, or from both, or from neither?

That is a summary of the Siva question. What undoubtedly lends it poignancy and gives a certain bite to the discussion is the possibility that a majority of the South Indian participants in this discussion may be Saivite by belief, so deeply interested parties.

Unfortunately, for this discussion, it is clear that for the Hindu religion to draw inspiration from a religious entity from the IVC does not amount to saying that the IVC was Hindu. It may at best have had a major influence on Hindu religion and theogony.

The entire argument (or set of arguments) above is based on the AIT. If we are interpreting things by the light of the OOI, I must meekly retire. It is for those who hold by it to explain things.

And can youplease find out what a valley is? Then can you also find out what a catchment area is. Could you possibly then explain how is Lothal in the Indus Valley?

I would like to consider this delicious point after some time. Today's world calls.

 

[Rafi]

Those Pakistanis who feel the inadequacy of their Islamic identity, but still hate India, are the ones who clutch at the IVC as a drowning man clutches at straw, while ignoring everything in between the IVC and Muhammad bin Qasim.

As pointed out by Vinod, the fact that the IVC is historically obscure enables them to argue that it has nothing to do with India.

As a matter of fact, there are some proven architectural links with Vedic India, but I would have no complexes about admitting any links with the Elamites or Mesopotamians also.

LoL putting words and expressions to another people, the height of hubris.